TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is very vague, therefore, there was negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the required particulars. The CIT(Appeals) has not commented on the reply given by the assessee on 21.10.12009. The Ld. D.R. clarified that the assessee has also filed letter dated 21.10.2009 and a copy of the letter is available on the files of the Department. The assessment proceeding was completed originally on 23.10.2009. The assessee filed the letter on 21.10.2009. Therefore, it is obvious that the details with regard to advance receipt of ₹ 96,75,000/- and the capital to the extent of ₹ 6,50,000/- were very much available on the file of the Assessing Officer. In other words, the assessee has furnished the details with rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... katraman, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment beyond the period of four years even though there was no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars for completing the assessment. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 31.03.2006 admitting a total income of ₹ 3,94,460/- and agricultural income of ₹ 75,000/-. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 23.10.2009 determining the total income at ₹ 4,52,236/- and agricultural income at ₹ 75,000/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer by a notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained in a letter dated 21.10.2009 that it is an advance received for sale of land at Chinnasalem, which was shown in the balance sheet as land account 4.64 acres, for which a copy of the advance receipt was also filed before the Assessing Officer. Hence the credit of ₹ 6,50,000/- and the advance receipt of ₹ 96,75,000/- were explained before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings by way of letter dated 21.10.2009. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, there was no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the details before the Assessing Officer. Since there was no negligence, according to the Ld. representative, the assessment cannot be reopened after expiry of four years from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Bench whether a copy of the letter written by the assessee on 21.10.2009, which is available at page 14 of the paper-book, was filed by the assessee, the Ld. D.R. after verifying the records of the Department, clarified that the copy of the letter dated 21.10.2009 is very much available on the record of the Department. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 23.10.2009. The assessment year under consideration is 2006-07. The four years period expired on 31.03.2010. Admittedly, the notice for reopening the assessment under Section 148 was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in furnishing the required particulars. The CIT(Appeals) has not commented on the reply given by the assessee on 21.10.12009. The Ld. D.R. clarified that the assessee has also filed letter dated 21.10.2009 and a copy of the letter is available on the files of the Department. The assessment proceeding was completed originally on 23.10.2009. The assessee filed the letter on 21.10.2009. Therefore, it is obvious that the details with regard to advance receipt of ₹ 96,75,000/- and the capital to the extent of ₹ 6,50,000/- were very much available on the file of the Assessing Officer. In other words, the assessee has furnished the details with regard to the capital said to be introduced by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 6,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
